Posted
by
CmdrTaco
on Wednesday January 30, 2008 @12:19PM
from the please-don't-make-me-jailbreak dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Speculation is mounting that Google is plotting the launch of a mobile phone in partnership with computer giant Dell.
Senior industry sources claim the two companies will reveal their plans at next month's 3GSM telecoms conference in Barcelona, although Google insiders deny an announcement is due in the near future."

Given that the last sentence of the linked story is incorrect - Dell currently does not manufacture its own range of handhelds - there's a good chance that there may be some flames accompanying this smoke, for the simple reason that Google aren't a hardware company. They play the tech market more like MS in that they supply software and services, but partner to build devices.

Anyone with taste? Having said that, I have a HTC WM6 smartphone and it works pretty well because it can connect directly to our exchange server, and has a great slideout keyboard - much more useful than the touchscreen only iPhone (though my HTC device has a touchscreen too of course, makes navigating menus and such far quicker, and should I ever need Remote Desktop on the go then the option is there)

Austin doesn't innovate? I work with both Austin and Cupertino (hardware platform engineering), and I can tell you the drive for internal invention and market advantage is equally strong at both places.

In fact, when doing products for both companies, I get soft requirements from Cupertino - "here's what we have now, make it work better, we really don't measure, just go by what we feel and experience" - versus a stack of documents from Austin - "Here's what we have now, and here is your minimum pass criteria and acceptable performance metrics". In my experience Austin is much more "engineering" based than Cupertino. They'll figure out what they want to feel and experience then document it so you know what you're working towards. Cupertino expects you to figure out what they want and then get there.

So why the apparent difference between the two? The difference is that Austin has a MUCH bigger set of competitors than Cupertino; Austin competes with HP/Compaq, Lenovo, IBM, Acer, eMachines, and a host of others. They play in the market that is also completely open - open source software AND hardware (thanks to common platforms for hardware). Their market is dominated by the sub $400 desktop, and the sub $700 laptop. The consideration between private label/inhouse designed/known brand products is always huge, because it will affect market perceptions (for example, would you buy a computer from Austin if they used their own brand video card, versus the same computer price with a state of the art nVidia, even if the performance was the same?).

Cupertino's competition is essentially Sony, simply because of style. In terms of actual hardware platform competitors, there isn't one - it's a closed system (hardware and software). And Cupertino's starting price points are a LOT higher. Makes it easier to justify the 400mm perfect-bend clear plastic cases, or the machined aluminum housings.